Talk:Nontrinitarianism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Relative worship" term used by WT, whether editors personally agree or not, it's sourced

Relative worship

To Laurel Lodged (and others who have this problem)

JW literature has used the term “relative worship”. That's just a fact. Whether you're aware of it or not. You’re just giving your own opinion and POV spin of what “worship” would have to mean. WP is not the place for that. Regardless of what you personally think that means or if it’s true or not. WP goes by what is sourced, not your opinion of whether it’s true or not. Their literature has said "relative worship". They have made a distinction between “proskyneo” (given to Christ and the Father), and “sacred service” ("latriea", given only to the Father) That’s their interpretation and explanation. In their Insight book. Again, the point, whether you are aware or not, or agree or not, the WT has used the term “relative worship”. Also, what you seem not to understand or care about is that the word "obeisance" MEANS "worship" or "homage". ("Proskyneo" in Greek was a broad term.) So I actually have no big problem with "obeisance" as that what it means anyway, except for the fact that most people don't really understand (and some never even heard of the word) "obeisance". But the WT has called that "relative worship". But even if you have a problem with that, removing "before ages" or "literal Son" is not warranted at all. That's what the WT says and teaches. Anyway, Trinitarian bias and opinion are not where this WP article should be. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

ADDENDUM

I just restored other editor's words of "obeisance" and "High Priest", as those were valid edits and additions (and accurate, and no one person owns any article, etc). But with elaboration. Again, it's just a sourced fact that the WT itself has called it "relative worship". Whether I personally agree with that view of it, or whether you personally agree, because of maybe a Trinitarian paradigm or bias, is IRRELEVANT. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedic article situation. Not a place to give Athanasian or Trinitarian positions. They call it "relative worship" etc, from "proskyneo" being broad, and that's just a fact. But again, I put back "obeisance" and also "High Priest". As those were arguably valid. Regards.Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, how is it a "sourced fact", I don't see the source? A quick Google Books search on "relative worship" Watchtower reveals 6 hits, talking about icons and idols. Not about JW worship of Christ. However, I'm less sure what to do about "worship" given that in English it does mean a narrow meaning than in the Bible, you're correct about proskyneo; we don't worship kings and priests these days. Further see Edmond C. Gruss - 2003 The Four Presidents of the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) Page 104 Gruss isn't a reliable source, he's an Evangelical ex-JW, but what he presents on this page is primary source material showing that JW reading of "worship" has moved from obeisance (which is what the Greek meant) to "worship as God" (which is what it means to most English speakers). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

See Worship in Christianity for a full exposition. Contrast the Catholic position on veneration of Mary with adoration of Jesus. The first is not worship while the second is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pithily... This section title is ridiculously long, I created a shortened subtitle #Relative worship. The term "literal" was used somewhat loosely; the thought is intact without it. The expression "before ages" seems the kind of interjection which adds nothing to the thought that isn't already there without it (eg pbuh).
Regarding "worship" v "obeisance"...
Curiously, the editor himself acknowledges: "the word "obeisance" MEANS "worship" or "homage""; why then does the editor insist upon the one troublesome word (over any other)?
JW beliefs are to "worship only Jehovah".

• Awake!, November 2010, ©Watch Tower, page 21, "Bible emphasizes that we should worship only Jehovah God."
• The Watchtower, May 15, 2008, page 31, "One’s worship—and therefore one’s prayers—should go only to Jehovah God."

Insisting on the particular word "worship" to describe honors due Christ seems very odd when specifically discussing JWs. The word "worship" nudges the reader to infer wrongly, explicitly contradicts JW publications in the most recent half-century or more, implicitly contradicts every JW publication ever, and (this last point is merely an aside) apparently upsets JWs themselves. JW publications acknowledge that others use of the term in a different way than is generally accepted, but it should be acknowledge that the term "worship" has particular theological implications. For now I've left it in, but parenthetically. Oh, here is the only time JW publications since 1950 have used "Jesus","relative", and "worship" in the same paragraph:

• "Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus’ position under God. (Philippians 2:9-11) Here some versions render pro‧sky‧ne′o “pay . . . homage” (The New English Bible), “do obeisance to” (New World Translation), or “bow before” (An American Translation). If one prefers the rendering “worship,” such worship is relative, for Jesus told Satan: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship [form of pro‧sky‧ne′o], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.”—Matthew 4:8-10."--The Watchtower, January 15, 1992, page 23
  

My edits are here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Relative Worship"

I understand. And that's why I said I have no real problem (technically) with the word "obeisance" as that is the word for "proskyneo" ALSO, and as I said, "obeisance" IS a form of "worship", but also the point is that that's why the phrase "RELATIVE worship" was put in. Not just the word "worship" alone, by itself. There's been confusion for years (even the the Watchtower itself) over what the word "worship" Biblically means. The "proskyneo" sense was broad, where in the Old Testament even King David and Angels got that. In the New Testament only the Father and Son get "proskyneo" properly. But the other word "serve" or "sacred service" is "latria" in Greek, is only clearly unambiguously given to the Father in the New Testament (though some try to debate that unsuccessfully). And THAT is the word that is "only Him" (the Father) in the New Testament. That's the JW thing on that. It's clearly in their "Insight" book. The problem is that today when we think of the word "worship" we tend to think of the HIGHEST FORM of it, rather than the broader "homage" or "obeisance" type stuff. Hence the point of "relative worship". Because JWs acknowledge that it's proper to bow before Christ, but not before Paul or Mary. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Literal ages

"Literal" and "before ages"

You keep removing the words "literal" and "before ages" with truly no warrant at all, to be frank, nor valid WP explanation or anything. I just restored that, and left your other edits alone, per this talk.

But there's ZERO reason to keep removing "literal" and "before ages", as that IS what they clearly teach, and it's not really clearly "already there", as some may not know exactly how or when "son" is, according to the WT, that it was before ages of the systems, before the whole universe itself, the Logos was there already, begotten directly God, and that it was a literal "firstborn" or "first-begotten", and not just a metaphorical title. But that the Logos was literally actually "begotten first" from God. No warrant or valid reason to keep removing that, simply because you may "not like it" or because YOU think it's unnecessary. The thought may not be clearly "already there" to many casual readers. A lot of people think that "Son" is only from Mary. But before all ages of the universe etc is clearer elaboration, and not necessary to remove. It's what they teach and believe. That Christ was created before all systems or ages of the universe. And that it was a literal firstborn situation, not a figurative one. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that my words will persuade the editor, but persuasion is unneeded to remove unsourced material (as I have again). The editor should not reinstate his preferred wording without sourcing it.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You dodged everything that I took the time to state and write, and didn't address anything, but simply edit-warred again, and removed true valid words, that you personally (in your obvious Trinitarian bias) "don't like". So your words "unlikely that my words will persuade the editor" are applied actually to you. You're getting annoying now. And disrespectful.

I went through a whole thing of why "literal" is warranted (which you ignored) and "before ages" is true and necessary and clearer, (which you ignored, but just gave out your bias about it), and ignored the points, and reverted again, stuff that's true and accurate, simply because YOU feel it's "unnecessary", which is against WP policy.

Also, your objection now makes no sense and is not consistent. You say now it shouldn't be done "without sourcing it", but before you said it was "not necessary because it was already there". The thing is sourced in general, that that's what is meant and taught by them. That the "begetting" was literally "first", and also that it was "before" the universal ages. It's clearer that way, and is sourced in general.

I took the time to go over the matter, and write a bunch of stuff, respectfully and thoughtfully, and deal specifically with the points, and with your objections...and you didn't even care.

You're NOT supposed to revert or remove again, when it's still in Talk and without discussing it over more in Talk, or getting full consensus maybe (even if the consensus is arguably wrong, that has not even been reached yet.) You just simply reverted again, in rude arrogance. And totally ignored everything I took the time to write and deal with. Not cool. And against WP policy and standards. Keep it up, and I'll maybe bring this to another page. I'm serious. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not restore "before ages". It is entirely ambiguous, and readers should not be expected to be familiar with this special term, nor should they be expected to refer to the Talk page to find out. Use generic terms to say what you mean. If the special term is particularly significant to the belief, the special term needs to be briefly clarified in prose.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be ambiguous to some, but it is what is meant, before universal worlds and systems, and if that's the case should be elaborated. As I said, there should be a consensus, before removing (accurate) terms (even if they might be sort of ambiguous to some), in Talk. And if there is consensus (whether I personally agree or not), then that should be honored. But it seemed like only one or maybe two (biased) editors had an issue with it. But since you (who I know are more objective) seem to have an issue with it as well, and consensus may be building (if no other editor wants to chime in anywhere or not aware of the discussion) then I will not engage in edit-warring, per policy. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it can't be used at all, though I'm not aware that the specific phrase is so important to the belief that it needs to be. In general, if a term "might be ambiguous to some", it should be explained or replaced. On face value, before ages is ambiguous in meaning and awkwardly phrased. The phrasing comes across as ostentatious, as does before universal worlds and systems. It seems like, in this context, it's intended to mean before the creation of the universe, which would be much clearer. If the phrase "before ages" is especially important to the subject, refer to it in quotes (perhaps providing the context of the original usage), indicating a source, then briefly provide the meaning in generic terms.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I can't see the point of "before ages" or this teacup editwar. So JWs have Arian Christology and teach preexistence of Christ. Fine. Please someone find a source that says that and link it. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Literal begotten

In the article, I have emphasized the word "first"; this should tend to clarify that Jesus is not considered to have been "begotten" in a literal way.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem here. You're not understanding that they DO consider the "begotten" to be "literal". Because that IS how the WT considers it to be "in a literal way". This is about how THEY word things, and interpret it to be, NOT how YOU like it or think it should be. Your trinitarian bias is not the place for this article. This matter was already discussed days ago, and some changes and removals were already made. But this part is not valid or necessary. The WT considers a "literal" begetting to be just that. And they have worded it as "first-begotten" (or first-born) as being literal, not figurative or metaphorical. The paragraph is supposed to be how THEY word or view things, not how you do. (Or Trinitarians in general.) Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the above sound a little WP:ORish without sources. AuthorityTam, I've restored your edit because of Hashem sfarim SHOUTing in edit summary but all the same is there a source for this? and even if there is, why not just link to more detailed description in the JW article? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You actually reverted because of (wrongly perceived) "shouting" and no other real reason? (Only two words had caps, not the whole sentence) Are you for real? Number one: I was not shouting. That was one or two words in caps for emphasis, not shouting. Because edit comments don't allow italics, otherwise I would have used that. But that is regardless, because that is no valid WP reason to undo an edit, simply because of "shouting" in an edit comment, that in this case wasn't even meant as that. Stop being disrespectful...I'm serious. Your bias is obvious now, but if you think I'll put up with the nonsense, you're sadly mistaken. You disrespected me. I won't forget that. Keep it up. And it'll be elevated, and it'll get ugly. You did not really look one iota at the merits of anything, but in bias, undid the thing, simply because you didn't like how I put a couple of caps in an edit comment. Not cool, and not WP valid. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Hashem sfarim, it's not an issue of bias - I don't know enough about JW Christology to have any idea why you and others are edit warring on that line. I note only that YOU have SHOUTed in CAPS above, where italics is possible. And as reqards the rest please see WP:Talk page guidelines and links from there to Etiquette, Edit summaries and other helpful WP guidelines. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No sir, was not shouting at all. One or two words in all caps in an edit comment that won't allow italics, where the rest of the comment was not in all caps, is not shouting. I did not mean at such. But as an italics substitute. For real.

If the whole comment (literally every single word) was in all caps, you might have a point, as that would basically be shouting for real. But when 95% of the sentence is normal size, and literally just one or two words are in caps, then it's hasty to think it's "shouting". Edit comment fields don't allow italics, otherwise I would have used that. (Even so, to undo a comment really on that (wrongly perceived basis alone) seems a bit strange and disrespectful. As far as the actual merit of the situation itself, it's just a fact that JW literature uses "first-begotten" for the pre-existent Christ, and they believe it's literal. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

So either you or Authority Tam find a secondary WP:RS please. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, see this is the thing, and I mean this seriously. Tam definitely has some personal doctrinal bias in that he personally feels that "begotten" can't imply or indicate a beginning. But Arius and JWs believe the opposite. That a literal "begetting" MUST imply a beginning as a true "bringing forth". Whether I agree or not with that assessment, or Tam, etc, does not really matter. Because it's how JWs themselves officially view the matter in that regard, and that paragraph is about their position of how that works. By the way, I know why the edit comment field won't allow italics. Because the whole field is italics!!! LOL....... Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm glad you're LOLing. Maybe that's a good sign. Though above charge of "personal bias" isn't okay, see WP:NPA. But again, one of you please find a source. I would add a tag either way, but am not sure which version is the status quo.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I don't usually throw around that charge so easily. The problem is that I arguably have at least some evidence, and when it becomes obvious, I have to be honest. It's fairly clear that Tam has some in some sense bias (not that that's always a bad thing necessarily, but just as a matter of fact, we all have certain prejudices or leanings or pre-understandings of what or what is not, or how things mean this or way or that). It's obvious that he has Trintarian LEANINGS, if I may say, and when he says (by his own words) that the JW view of "begotten" is not "literal", that says a lot. And I was trying to correct the notion that the JW view of "begotten" or "first-begotten" is "not literal" to them. As it actually is "literal" to them, and that actually is the point. They believe it was a true bringing forth as a true "Son". The fact that Tam was even trying to remove the word "Son" you'll say does not show "bias"? Or at the very least misunderstandings or mis-representations of the JW official view, because of Tam's probable doctrinal biases, leanings, or pre-conceptions...of what Christ's "Sonship" has to mean to him, or what "begotten" has to mean to him, according to Nicean Trinitarianism? It becomes obvious after a while, and there's nothing so terrible in pointing it out. Though I do agree one should be careful. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You say that, but to the best of my ability I've tried to never use the word "bias" on a WP Talk page, of anyone; if I can do it, so can others. Good luck with finding a source. I'm off now. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph already says they believe Jesus is the "only begotten". In an article about non-Trinitarianism, in a list of groups introduced with an explicit statement that the groups that follow do not believe Jesus to be God, it is unnecessary to re-itereate that JWs don't believe Jesus is God. The paragraph also already states that they believe Jesus was God's only direct creation, making the claim of 'first-begotten' redundant and intuitively contradictory.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, but if you notice in AuthorityTam's last edit there, he put "first" in quotation marks (as in questioning the literalness of it somehow), and even removed the word "Son" from that part of it. And questioned whether "begotten" even is "literal" to JWs. So yes, there was definitely some unnecessary redundancy in a sense, as the previous sentences made the point arguably clear enough of "Son" and "first", but it becomes obvious (one it could argue) that not every person understands that so clearly, hence why further elaboration was done to maybe make it even clearer, to those who view "Son" and "begotten" only with a Nicean or Trinitarian lens or filter. So it could go either way, in a special case as the JW case. But yes, I do agree that sometimes less is more, and that things should be kept succinct and brief, as long as it's clear enough. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam probably put the quotes on "first" because JW literature consistently states that Jesus was God's only direct creation, and that everything else was created by means of Jesus (through some unstated process, which is out of this article's scope). It is generally not necessary to specify a unique thing as being first, and it is clearly stated that they believe all other creation happened afterwards.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but JW literature (from what I've seen and researched) also says things like "firstborn" and "first creation of God", etc. Which, though, as we said, that specific paragraph on JW belief (in contrast to traditional co-equal Trinitarian belief and doctrine) does make it fairly clear enough, the "only direct" as you mentioned, as well as the point of "first" begotten. I was only saying (since there seemed to be a wee bit misunderstanding or maybe confusion over the word "begotten", because of maybe Nicean pre-understandings and views of the term) that it may have needed some slight further elaboration or clarity. But again, "first" and "direct creation" are important points there, and I do agree that it is stated adequately enough. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "literal" often gets speakers and writers in trouble. My understanding had been that JWs believe Jesus to have been literally "first" but not literally "begotten" (the literality implying "copulatorily conceived"; compare this JW ref:
* "Jesus is God’s Son. God does not need a literal wife to produce such sons."-The Watchtower, June 15, 1994).

When JW publications use the term "literal" in reference to Jesus, they typically do so in connection with his human incarnation and human relations (for example,
* "Jesus [was] born a natural Jew, a literal descendant of Abraham."-The Watchtower, February 1, 1989).
However, JWs do not altogether reject the term "literal" when describing JW beliefs about God "begetting" Jesus:

• "[God] identified his Son, who was named Jesus and who literally descended from heaven"-The Watchtower July 15, 1987, page 31

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Christians who "don't care either way" worth mentioning?

What do editors think of this both as copyedit and if so, suitability of webpage source. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-deification of Jesus would seem to be out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, not WP:RS anyway.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy

There is some obvious overlap of some of the information in the Forms of nontrinitarianism and Alternative views sections. Is there a good reason for this? If not, those groups already listed in the first section do not also need to be listed in the second section. The criteria for inclusion in one or the other also seems ambiguous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As no one responded to this section, I have since removed the redundancy by merging the sections. It could still do with some improvement, and there may be other concepts that are not yet included.

On a separate matter, I'm not sure that Islam is really so much non-Christian nontrinitarianism as independant of Trinitarianism but having an opinion about the Christian doctrine. Similarly, other groups that do not deify Jesus at all (including atheists, as well as theists who believe Jesus was only a typical human) would seem to be outside of the typical description of nontrinitarianism which generally involves 'the Son' having some kind of 'spirit' form. Otherwise, the article would need to cover all nonchristian forms of monotheism as well as many forms of polytheism, and it would be impractical to do so.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity might well categorise JWS as being independant of Trinitarianism but having an opinion about the Christian doctrine. Do JWs deify Jesus? Isn't Jehovah alone worthy of adoration according to JWs? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The removal of duplication is good, and a welcome change from the buzz of activity over the JW paragraph. It really would be good if that could be sorted out, with sources, on the relevant JW article, and let this article settle to more major problems. Jeffro77 I have restored Dawn Bible Students to their own place, merging them into the tail of the Rutherford movement is anachronistic. And please everyone - can we use mainstream sources, tertiary sources like Melton, a bit more? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

LaurelLodged, your implied comparison with my comments about Islam is irrelevant, because JWs are not outside of (unorthodox) Christianity. Please don't attempt a specious argument that JWs are not Christian, as the basis for such argument is that they don't accept the Trinity, which would be a fairly redundant argument to make at this article in particular. In answer to your specific question, yes, JWs do deify Jesus. Specifically, in their translation of John 1:1, they refer to Jesus as "a god".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, no problem with your edit to separate the DBS; in fact, with the extra refs I prefer it. Though I don't think it's necessary to break alphabetical order.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Was it alphabetical? Okay,.. I didn't notice. Chronological might be better. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to prefer the latter, with an overall division into early/medieval/modern groups. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not say that JWs are outside unorthodox Christianity. My comments referred to how they are viewed by mainstream Christianity. To juxtaposition them with Islamists is valid in that it invites the question, "Why would an Islamist be excluded but not a JW seeing as they share the same views on the trinity?". Regarding your reply to my specific question, is the John 1:1c reference proof that JWs deify Jesus? Is not Moses also called a god? Are not the Judges called gods? Are not the melak (angels) also called gods? Yet nobody includes Moses in their Trinity. The Judges are not included in any pantheon that I know of. So is this really deification in the sense that mainstream Christians would understand the term or does it put Jesus more on a par with Divus Augustus? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

JW publications do indeed cite John 1:1 in concluding that Jesus is a god:
The Watchtower, March 1, 1991, page 28, "At John 1:1 the New World Translation reads: “The Word was a god.” ...Jehovah’s Witnesses, among many others, had challenged the capitalizing of “god” long before the appearance of the New World Translation, which endeavors accurately to render the original language. Five German Bible translators likewise use the term “a god” in that verse. At least 13 others have used expressions such as “of divine kind” or “godlike kind.” These renderings agree with other parts of the Bible to show that, yes, Jesus in heaven is a god in the sense of being divine."
Perhaps the editor could contribute to the article at 'John 1:1'. Incidentally, while the term "Orthodox Christianity" is neutral, the term "orthodox Christianity" is mildly nonneutral; the term "unorthodox Christian" seems blatantly nonneutral. A common synonym for "unorthodox" is "heretical".--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the John 1:1c issue. My words were carefully chosen, hence my comments on Moses, the Judges and Augustus. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems best to repeat the editor's seemingly sincere questions and intersperse sincere answers.

• is the John 1:1c reference proof that JWs deify Jesus? Argubly, JW publications do support the substance of that interpretation (as cited above), but the term "deify" evokes apotheosis and thus doesn't really apply; JWs and other Christians believe Jesus was divine both after and before his human incarnation.
  "John confirms that the first stage in the line of communicating divine truth is through Jesus as the Word. This logically makes Jesus the second-greatest authority in the universe. After Jesus returned to heaven following his resurrection, one of his titles continued to be “The Word of God.”"-(Wt1955-05-15)
• Is not Moses also called a god? Are not the Judges called gods? JW publications claim that the Bible called those humans gods only "in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah"-Insight, Vol 1, page 969
• Are not the melak (angels) also called gods?
  Arguably, yes. For example, in light of Hebrews 2:7 (which explicitly uses the Greek term for "angels"/"ἀγγέλους"), the parallel passage at Psalm 8:5 is typically understood to refer to angels, but the original language of Psalms interestingly refers to them as "elohim" (that is, "gods", see elohim#Ambiguous readings) rather than as "malakh"; thus the verse in Psalms is not always translated "angels" but has also been translated as "heavenly beings" and "godlike ones".
• So is this really deification [of Jesus] in the sense that mainstream Christians would understand the term...?
  Arguably yes. JWs consider Jesus an archangel (a one-unit subset of "angels" or "godlike ones"), but they consider the resurrected Jesus even more elevated than that.
  Insight, Vol 2, Watch Tower, page 557, "Jesus Christ is properly described as “the only-begotten god {Gr., mo·no·ge·nes′ the·os′}.”—Joh 1:18, NW, Ro, Sp."
  Reasoning, Watch Tower, page 150, "Jesus is spoken of in the Scriptures as “a god,” even as “Mighty God.” (John 1:1; Isa. 9:6) ...He exists “in God’s form,” and the Father has commanded that “in the name of Jesus every knee should bend,” but this is all done “to the glory of God the Father.”—Phil. 2:5-11
  However, JW publications reject terms that may be misunderstood by "mainstream Christians", eg explicitly stating "Scriptures do not support the idea of “the divinity of Christ.”"-(Wt, 1992-01-15)
• [D]oes it put Jesus more on a par with Divus Augustus?
  No, it seems unlikely that JWs consider Augustus or the Temple of Divus Augustus at all, much less on par with Jesus.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, the juxtaposition of JWs with Islam is inaccurate, because one is within Christianity and the other is outside it. The scope of the article is predominantly about nontrinitarian Christianity, which is viewed a particular way by mainstream Christianity overall. To focus specifically on how mainstream Christianity considers JWs in particular would therefore be undue weight here. The sense in which JW's call Jesus a god is quite different to their view of the other individuals you list, as has already been pointed out.

In ictu oculi, I did think about putting them all in chronological order, and I would prefer that, but the order did not seem clear for some groups, particularly the very old ones.

AuthorityTam, I only used the parenthesised term 'unorthodox' to try to avoid the typical arguments about JWs not being 'real' Christians. I really had no chance of not getting picked on by someone no matter what I said.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea who first used the nonneutral term "unorthodox".--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. My only point was that someone would object, no matter how I worded things. Who the someone is is not particularly important.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bible Students 2012

Copied from a recent comment above:
"I have restored Dawn Bible Students to their own place, merging them into the tail of the Rutherford movement is anachronistic. ...Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Nontrinitarianism is a common doctrine of Bible Student movement theology; the movement's template lists only seven doctrines, and one of them is "Nontrinitarianism". The article 'Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine' currently lists nontrinitarianism as explicitly settled by 1881, but The Watchtower's founding editor Charles Taze Russell later claimed that he had 'never accepted the Trinity' (seemingly dating nontrinitarianism before 1879). So... While this article would likely list "Bible Student movement" or "Jehovah's Witnesses" (JWs comprise literally 99.9% of current Bible Student movement adherents), there seems no reason to list the movement's largely-unknown individual religious denominations. Incidentally, Dawn Bible Students is not a denomination but is a publishing house; it was founded several decades after the Watch Tower Society publishing house. Literally hundreds of verifiable references attest that the religious community in association with Watch Tower was: 1) established in the 1800s, 2) known specifically as IBSA, and 3) renamed "Jehovah's Witnesses"; by no verifiable measure did this religious community emerge "later" than the Dawn publishing house. Incidentally, the term "Rutherford movement" seems nonneutral and poorly supported by scholarly works, and should be avoided.--AuthorityTam (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I refactored existing information from the previously redundant section, and kept Dawn Bible Students only for that reason, because the merge was, overall, quite tiring. As I suggested at the time, it "still needs cleanup". It would be better to indicate the Bible Student movement generally instead of the other minor groups.

No claim has been made at this article about when Charles Taze Russell began or stopped believing the Trinity or whether he later denied it, nor is that directly relevant to Jehovah's Witnesses, which developed after Russell's death. You may like to start a section at the other article's Talk page if you dispute the sources that suggest Russell believed in the Trinity at some point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The 1881 and 1879 dates were included in this discussion here to show that the Bible Student movement's nontrinitarianism was well-established before any denominational splintering developed. The current article at 'Development of Jehovah's Witnesses doctrine' already discusses "sources that suggest Russell believed the Trinity at some point" (actually a single 1877 work that Russell co-authored frowned on the idea that the holy spirit "is nothing more nor less than electricity"; the other "source" was neither written nor published by Russell or Watch Tower; even together the two "sources" allow for a pretty weak "suggestion"). That article's conclusion does seem the result of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but I understand that changes to that article should be discussed at that article.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Supporting scriptures: no proof!

The section Supporting scriptures provides a lot of Bible references that allegedly non-trinitarians use to prove this and that. But we don't need those lists of Bible references per se, because none of them prove anything at all, they're just a list of Bible references. We instead need a sourced explanation from non-trinitarians that explain why they should preferrably be interpreted against trinitarism, otherwise we ignorants (and everybody else, who are not anti-trinitarians) will not understand a beep. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 13:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of those have references from Jehovah's Witnesses publications. I would add it. --Fazilfazil (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Just read John 8:42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.154.83 (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Arian

Recent edits notwithstanding, the current article still uses "Arian" as a synonym for "nontrinitarian". Few nontrinitarians actually are adherents of Arianism, and editors should be careful to only use the latter term when it is appropriate and verifiable to do so.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Arianism is listed as one of the forms of nontrinitarianism in the section at the top. Improve other text as necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates in section about people

The section listing prominent people in the history of non-trinitarianism includes dates after each name, but nothing to describe what the dates indicate. Most indicate the year of death of the person, most of the rest the date of birth, an in others a date occurring during the life of the person. It seems to met that it would make most sense to include birth and death years, where known, and at least an annotation to the remaining dates (b. or d., for instance). Thoughts? El piel (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

MichaelJW

The article currently has a paragraph on Jehovah's Witnesses, eight sentences in all. Of the eight, four sentences discuss Jesus as Michael the archangel:
They identify Jesus as the archangel, Michael, mentioned in the Bible at Jude 9. They believe he left heaven to become Jesus Christ on earth, and that after his ascension to heaven he resumed his pre-human identity. This belief is partly based upon 1 Thessalonians 4:16, in which "the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel". They also cite passages from the books of Daniel and Revelation in which Jesus and Michael take similar action and exercise similar authority, concluding these scriptures indicate them to be the same person.
IMHO, that seems to be three or four sentences too many (at least for this article). How did a discussion of nontrinitarianism get so Michael-centric? I'll likely look to edit it in the next couple of weeks.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The focus on Michael was recently added by Willietell, and I did some subsequent cleanup on it. No objection to paring it down to a single sentence, or maybe removing it as out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I really think it is in scope and notable as a belief. The belief is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses as far as I know and it is relevant to the theme of the article, in that it partially explains the biblical understanding of JW's as to why Jesus is not a part of a trinitarian godhead but rather an angel in heaven who both existed before the universe was created and continues to exist today as the foremost angel in heaven. I would have actually liked to have expounded upon it a little and drawn attention to other scriptures found in Daniel, Proverbs, Psalms, and Revelation that Jehovah's Witnesses believe support this reasoning, but I concluded this would become rather lengthy, so I only made a short reference to Daniel and Revelation. In any case, I included the information because I thought it both noteworthy and within the scope of the article. Willietell (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to talk about Michael in order to establish the JW belief that Jesus is not part of a Trinity.

There shouldn't be more about Michael or archangels here. This is covered at Archangel and Michael (archangel) (there were some redundancy and scope issues with the sections at those two articles, which I've attempted to clean up—discuss any concerns at those Talk pages); both of those articles have sections discussing the JW belief.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support the inclusion of Michael. If Michael, a mere angel, is just one of the many "heavenly beings" and "godlike ones" (see discussion above), then that makes clear the regard in which Jesus is held by JWs. On the spectrum from the mortal to the Almighty, it makes clear why the JW position is nontrinitarian. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One solid sentence is sufficient regarding the JW belief that Jesus is a created angel and the only archangel (and thus Michael). Editors should know that JWs are not entirely unique in their belief that Michael is Jesus, but regardless: that discussion is almost entirely unrelated to Trinitarianism or nontrinitarianism; it's better discussed at 'Michael (archangel)#Jehovah's Witnesses' and/or 'Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs#Jesus Christ'.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the lead, this a subheading in the article. Brevity is not important here, it is more important to give a well rounded understanding to the reader, and the material regarding Michael goes towards helping the reader understand Jesus' position in heaven and that, as the archangel Michael, Jesus cannot be part of some trinitarian godhead. Willietell (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems sufficient to simply mention the JW belief that Jesus is Michael, and it seems unnecessary to devote half the current section ('Nontrinitarianism#Jehovah's Witnesses') to discussing the idea. The extra material is certainly not unduly weighing, but the Wikipedia community seems better-served by linking to (rather than including) a more-thorough discussion of 'JW beliefs#Jesus Christ' and/or 'Michael (archangel)#Jehovah's Witnesses'.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Large delete reverted

Earlier today, an editor deleted an entire section. I hadn't seen that previously discussed, so I reverted that delete pending discussion if needed. I left in place all the minor edits (see here and if you want, compare the delete with my revert).--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The action was a bit extreme but has been hinted at here by several editors. It's clear that it's just a collection of Scriptural verses. In and of themselves, they prove nothing. They are primary sources. Strictly speaking, secondary sources should be used to support a point. Wiki is not a debating shop. Either the position is verifiable from secondary sources or it is not. Something like this was long overdue. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Tam, I performed the delete. The section, as summarized in the edit, is just a large collection of proof-texts, which is inherently unencyclopedic/un WP:Verifiable (it probably falls under WP:WEIGHT as well, although if the article on Trinitarianism has a list of proof-texts, I'll head over there and blank it out too) as it uses primary sources that are open to interpretation - as the template says, "This section uses religious texts as primary sources in a way that is not encyclopedic" [paraphrase] - the rest of the article seems to be in order when I read through it, but that section doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. As my edit summary said, "Wikipedia is not a debating hall or apologetics testing ground" (although I'm not sure if we actually have policies that say it in no few short words).

If you wish, I believe you can re-write the section with specific references to antitrinitarian secondary or tertiary sources, such as, "The Jehovah's Witness' book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, presents an apologia for antitrinitarian beliefs, and it uses some of these verses [add verses and the interpretation given in the book]..." or "The Encyclopedia of Christianity says that Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures uses these verses, interpreted in X manner, to support contention Y". I will let this sit here for a couple of days to gain comments, or, if you wish, you may open an RfC on it. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 01:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, except for labeling nontrinitarians as "antitrinitarians, that seems entirely fine and I can agree with its removal on the basis described. I have no plans to rewrite the section, but I also would not object to another editor's rewrite per secondary sources, so the "couple of days" makes sense before re-deleting the section and noting that here.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize one was preferred: "nontrinitarians" are "antitrinitarians", as those who reject something are generally considered anti- it (as in antidisestablishmentarians, not "nondisestablishmentarians") and it's the term I'm familiar with from the sources I have used (I'd never seen "non-" before this article). Some group such as "Hindus" could be described as "nontrinitarian", because they are not Trinitarian yet do not actively reject the dogma, whereas Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Muslims, etc. are not Trinitarian, but also actively reject the dogma (making them "antitrinitarian").

I was going to delete it today (three day wait), but I'll give it until tomorrow or the day after, if you wish. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that nontrinitarians don't wish to be defined by their rejection of trinitarianism, though nontrinitarians are typically not shy to acknowledge and discuss it. It's been a while since the matter has been rehashed, but every time the merits of nontrinitarianism and antitrinitarianism are compared as titles, nontrinitarianism emerges as superior for Wikipedia's purposes (eg this article's Talk).--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with the title of the article either way as long as the standard term is somewhere in the lead (as it is now). I have no desire of opening another debate on some pedantry, as often happens on many religion articles. It would seem that anti/nontrinitarians, even if they do not wish to be defined by their rejection of the Trinity, are defined as such by mainstream Christians, that dogma - the Nicene Creed - being the oldest and most dearly held of all (even those Christians who are so liberal as to be apostate by any objective criteria still hold to a pretense of Trinity, from what I've seen - it even permeates Spong's writings!): being whether in truth or in consequence (I think both) the main difference between the groups. As, everything hinges on Jesus' divinity - soteriology, theo-/anthropology, Christology, sacred and dogmatic theology, ecclesiology, even study or view of Biblical inspiration and continuing revelations. When one looks at the mainstream Christian tradition and non/antitrinitarianism, one can ask what do they have in common with each other? The Bible. Mostly. (As most that I've seen lay claim to some form of continuing public revelation, whether through Swedenborg, the Watchtower, the General Authorities, or The SCIENCE God/El-Rashonaliddai, as the extinct Unitarians and Deists.) That's a pun on "El-Shaddai" if you didn't get it. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It actually appears the list of verses was put in here in an edit war between an alleged Trinitarian and a clearly abusive now-banned sockpuppeteer "See your one verse? Look at the TWENTY ONE verses I put above it to contradict it! God-damned Trinitarian! (emphasis in the original). Four years ago, this article was clearly a POV-fork (not that it is now): were the standards that much laxer back then? I've edited as an IP since 2007, but never used the talk page or did anything other than add content and copyedit. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 04:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am deleting now, after five days' wait. If any man stumbleth upon this and wisheth to re-write the section in an encyclopedic manner through the interpretations of secondary sources, feel welcome to. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 23:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Nothing was really settled here in Talk, and I put everything back, per common sense. If Johnny keeps doing this because of obvious Trinatarian and chronic bias, with the weak front excuse of "not sourced", then he will probably ALWAYS be reverted. His wholesale removals are arguable vandalism. And should not really be tolerated, unless the matter is truly really settled in the discussion here, and real solid clear and copious consensus is established. Which hasn't happened. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum - as for the name of this article, it's fine...but I do agree that "anti-trinitarianism" should be somewhere in the article. But the more loaded term of "anti" is not the main point (per AuthorityTam's good point) of what nontrinitarian professed Christians adhere to or dwell on necessarily. Dawn Bible Students and JWs don't necessarily go around saying or thinking what Jesus is not more than they deal with who they believe Jesus is. Which, according to their view, just happens to be the First Son and Creation, who happens to be less than the Uncreated Father. And Modalists don't necessarily define themselves as being against Trinitarianism more than they define themselves as being for Jesus Only as the Only Name and actual Only Person of God. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the section should stand, if you feel the section is poorly written then undertake re-writing it, do the research and provide the secondary sources you seek. I will help as my time permits, but I have arrived at a busy time of year for me and my time at present is limited, but I will do what I can to help. Willietell (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The section is original research and the deletion should have stood. In any case it is far, far too long, which is why WP:UNDUE was mentioned. There is no vandalism here and religious arguments aren't a reason to delete or keep and Hashem's comments are personal attacks. Consensus isn't relevant where policy is concerned. I've taken this to WP:NORN#Nontrinitarianism#Scriptural verses employed by nontrinitarians. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Just want to second (or third) Doug's action here. This doesn't however preclude (1) finding WP:RS sources that clearly state that x verse is used by x nontrinitarian commentator (or better historically notable Arians/Socinians/Unitarians or notable modern church) to restore the mention of x verse as properly sourced. (2) checking other articles - I haven't looked at Trinitarianism - to ensure the same WP standard is being applied. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It should indeed be deleted. The purpose of the article is not to try to convince readers of a particular theological position. It is not necessary to provide a long list of scriptures in order to present the relevant beliefs of notable nontrinitarian groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I am deleting it again. Common sense doesn't an encyclopedia write, nor does it policy override. It should not be here (it is a primary source, a list/directory, and open to interpretation: that is evidenced enough by the fact that Trinitarians use the very same verses to argue their position). Whether or not you personally think it should be here, policy states that it can not. Open an RfC if you want to. And, Hashem, make sure you're not just angered at my AfD, alright? You're coming across as writing polemics against "Trinitarian bias" and asserting that a personal "Trinitarian bias" of mine is what is urging the deletes (see above comment about Trinitarians using the same sources), not an adherence to policy and an attempt to build a better WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA instead of directory or apologetics test-ground, and further, that "they could be considered WP:VANDALISM". I'm, surely through misinterpretation on my part, sensing that they seem aimed at me. You seem to skirt the edge of WP:CIVILITY, and I would appreciate it if you would tone it down a bit, even if it is due to my own oversensitivity.

Furthermore, I do not know enough about the topic to write about it, and do not believe I could do it justice without bias; I do not have access to non/antitrinitarian sources. However, one does not have to be able to write something in order to apply policy to it. Also, if something is "not sourced", that is a valid reason to remove it as well as place {{fact}} or {{cn}} tags on it (and either the deletion stands or it is rewritten in accordance with policy) even if there is no other factor at play. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the IP editor: no personal attacks is a policy here (I suppose I'm doing something right - I've been in a few very contentious and heated debates but have never seen PA before) and violating it is severely frowned upon - especially when insinuating genocide. And, I also just saw Doug's link. I'm going to follow it and see everyone over there in a minute. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 09:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

To Dougweller above. I was merely stating my opinion that there seems to be some personal BIAS as well as "not enough sources and "OR"" arguments, from John. I'm not the only one who has felt that way. Or noticed things. Even if there's a kernel of truth to what he's saying, sorry, I doubt that that's the only reason for his motivation. I barely said anything about that though in my comments above. I was not the IP address that personally attacked John. The IP's comment was removed by John for some reason. I was making the point that consensus was never reached, and if anything, up until you showed up, had actually been going in the direction of retaining the sections. So it was not only presumptuous for John to remove entire sections like that, it was also just plain premature. One of his edit comments mentioned the Talk, but the problem is the "Talk" up until that point was no consensus to do anything that drastic. There was no agreement yet for that. And in fact, the opposite in a way. Also, another point is that there were plenty of sources and refs, in a lot of those sections, but apparently not enough. And some of it could have been modified, instead of entirely deleted. Hashem sfarim (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, I can agree with the section's removal on the basis described here. Any point or points could be reinstated if they are properly sourced (which would be relatively easy but time-consuming for an interested editor to do).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if there was personal bias, it would still be correct to delete for all the objective reasons written above. Is that being right for the wrong reason? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

True, because we all have leanings and positions, so that's no big problem all the time necessarily, but when it becomes a situation where there might be a combination of reasons or motives to remove entire sections that were established for a long time in an article, sections that had some refs at least, then it makes one wonder if at least some of the reason to remove said sections was not entirely valid, but maybe only semi-valid, and maybe more modifying than out-right deleting could have been more considered. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hashem: I ask again that you refrain from personal attacks. Accusing another editor of personal bias in absence of evidence (and, indeed, in evidence of adherence to policy) is a personal attack. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 21:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There were plenty of sources and refs, in a lot of those sections, but apparently not enough. And some of it could have been modified, instead of entirely deleted. Hashem sfarim (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

JWs publications have pioneered in convincing people to expose the non-scriptural theory of Trinity. So in case somebody need references for each scripture they can get it from their publications. I found a Sample is here. --Fazilfazil (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have saved the 'Ontological difference' section in my sandbox page. I saw that in Trinity article scriptures are referred to support arguments. When I get time I would try to write in a similar manner with proper references.--Fazilfazil (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If the "theory of Trinity" is "non-scriptural", then how can recourse to scrpture disprove. Wouldn't such a proof consist "there it isn't, like I told you so". At best, would this not amount to absence of evidence to support the theory as opposed to proof to absence? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a Universally known truth that the theory of trinity in not scriptural but are based on the teachings of church fathers. As quoted in this article several reputed encyclopedias explicitly support the fact. However people who say that church is infallible (though the church have done the most number of sins throughout the history), do all kinds of search in the Bible to find scriptures that could be construed as a fitting to their predefined beliefs. But that was not the point I was talking about. So I don't want to move forward with a vague conversation. I just wanted to compare the writing Style of this article with the trinity article--Fazilfazil (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Editor Laurel Lodged seems to be mildly teasing regarding the term "non-scriptural"; by contrast, editor Fazilfazil seems to use the term "non-scriptural" to seriously indicate that which he believes contradicts Scripture. Of course Wikipedia is not the place for Nontrinitarian or Trinitarian advocacy. Furthermore, Wikipedia is uninterested in whether a particular belief is or isn't "Scriptural". Wikipedia is interested in effectively discussing what verifiable references have to say about a notable topic in a balanced, encyclopedic format. The article on Nontrinitarianism should be informed by (that is, influenced by) the article at Trinitarianism, but the two topics are not directly comparable. As Fazilfazil notes, an editor interested in a "refresh" of the former "Scriptures" section here could source from Watch Tower publications (including Watchtower.org), but Wikipedia will prefer that other sources also be included (perhaps by other editors familiar with those other sources).--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ is God only

Is page about nontrinitarians (including people who believe in Jesus only) or is it about Father Unitarians (and jewish variations) if so could rename the page. Instead please include Jesus nontrinitarians on the page in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.79.206 (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

July 13, 2012 edit to remove POV wording

The recent edits to reduce POV wording have improved the tone of the article. The removal of the often pejorative term "cult" seems to be the basic action taken. Within the broad Christian realm, some trinitarian groups consider non-trinitarians to be less than Christian and thus are labeled "cult". Exchanging "cult" for "group", etc. moves the article closer to NPOV wording. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You are definitely right about the POV wording - that edit was, however, a reversal of one editor's very recent insertion of POV verbiage, rather than a removal of phrasing that had been in the article previously. The POV editor also removed all mention of nontrinitarianism from various Christianity related articles and templates (which has also been reverted). --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

nontrinitarianism or non-Trinitarianism?

The words Trinitarian and Trinitarianism are proper nouns; therefore, according to the rules regarding the usage of hyphens, the words "nontrinitarian" and "nontrinitarianism" are apparently wrong, and should be instead "non-Trinitarian" and "non-Trinitarianism", respectively. Please read the pertinent discussion on the Trinity article talk page, here: Talk:Trinity#Trinitarian or trinitarian.3F. In my opinion (and the other editor concurs), even the title of the article should be modified accordingly. I'm just trying to reach consensus instead of upsetting anyone. Dontreader (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, Esoglou, would you mind helping me out here? Thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

All I can do is repeat what I said at Talk:Trinity, where I cited a reliable source that says the word "Trinitarian" should be capitalized in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity or adherents to that doctrine, and that "trinitarian" with lower-case initial means threefold, in the sense of having three parts of aspects. The only source found for "nontrinitarian" is Wikipedia itself, an indication perhaps that it is an original-research coinage, and so a violation of Wikipedia rules. See Talk:Trinity#Trinitarian or trinitarian?. I think Dontreader may proceed immediately to move this article to "Non-Trinitarianism" and to correct all uses of the incorrect form. Esoglou (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The current spelling is, at best, an Americanism. "non-Trinitarianism" gets my vote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have found many instances of "nontrinitarianism" and "antitrinitarianism" being used outside of Wikipedia after performing Google searches, whereas other sources prefer "non-Trinitarianism" and "anti-Trinitarianism"; however, Esoglou and Laurel Lodged, I see overwhelming evidence that "Trinitarianism" and "Trinitarian" must be capitalized, and therefore a hyphen is indeed necessary after "non" and "anti" due to grammatical rules.

Here are some examples.

"Trinitarianism" and "anti-Trinitarianism" are capitalized (with a hyphen in the second case): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antitrinitarianism

"Trinitarian", "non-Trinitarian" and "anti-Trinitarian" are the correct forms: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antitrinitarian?qsrc=2446

In this link regarding the usage of hyphens, we read, "Do not hyphenate words prefixed by non, un, in, dis, co, anti, hyper, pre, re, post, out, bi, counter, de, semi, mis, mega, micro, inter, over, and under (among others). (...) EXCEPTIONS: When the second element is capitalized, as in Un-American and non-English, a hyphen is used." That's from http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/426348/2805.htm

On this other page, we see "Hyphenate prefixes when they come before proper nouns. Example: un-American". That's from http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp

Notice that those are the two sources used for the matter, taken from the Hyphen article, here: Hyphen#cite_note-3

One other source: "Use a hyphen (...) between a prefix and a capitalized word". https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/576/01/

Keep in mind, also, that the Trinity article uses capitalization for "Trinitarianism" and "Trinitarian", so we must be consistent. Dontreader (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but, I thought the issue was whether it should be hyphenated, and I agree that it should. But, having a capital letter in the middle of a word makes no sense to me. Also, Trinity is not always capitalized. It is when the subject deals with the belief in the Trinity (especially when followed by "Holy"), but since this article has to do with those who don't have the same beliefs, it shouldn't be capitalized. It's similar, in a way, to how "Bible" is normally capitalized, but "biblical" isn't. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Musdan77. I see your points; however, regarding the Trinity, notice that in this article the word "Trinity" is practically always capitalized because it's being used in the religious context, regardless of if people believe in that concept or not. The dictionaries that I have looked up have "Trinity" capitalized when it's used in that context, even though the makers of the dictionaries might not necessarily be religious. Here are a few examples:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trinity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinity

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/trinity

Also, you pointed out that "biblical" (the adjective associated with "Bible") is not capitalized; that's a good observation, but in the dictionaries that I looked up, both the noun "Trinitarianism" and the adjective "Trinitarian" are capitalized. For example:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Trinitarian

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trinitarian

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/trinitarian

Furthermore, "non-Christian" (for example) always has the hyphen and the "C" remains capitalized:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/non-Christian

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/non-christian

People are of course free not to use capitalization for such words if they are atheists, agnostics, or if they reject the concept of the Trinity, but I believe capitalization is the standard form for an encyclopedia. Thanks again... Dontreader (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As indicated in the authoritative source cited above, the adjective "Trinitarian" is capitalized in reference to the doctrine of the Trinity or adherents to that doctrine, and that "trinitarian" with lower-case initial means threefold, in the sense of having three parts or aspects. The distinction is similar to that between "Catholic" and "catholic". Correct hyphenation, when the second element is capitalized, keeps the capitalization, as in "un-American", "non-Anglo", "anti-Catholic", "pre-Tridentine", "non-English", etc. Esoglou (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by Dontreader to come to this page and discuss this matter. I have no big opinion one way or the other. I don't think though that the precise form "Nontrinitarianism" should necessarily be altered. There's no big need for that. It's fine how it is. Also, I'm not sure why Esoglou said that the form "Nontrinitarian" is only a Wikipedia coinage, not found outside of Wikipedia. I believe it can also be found here...too. I don't think that's a Wikipedia page or anything, and it uses that form too. Unless it could be considered by some as an "unreliable source". But that's not really true either. The point is that term (I believe, unless I'm wrong somewhere) does exist in that manner elsewhere also. Cheers. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Which is better? Reliable sources say that, in English, "Trinitarian" must be capitalized when referring to the doctrine or its upholders. That's the doctrine referred to in this article, whose title should therefore be "non-Trinitarian", in line with "un-American", "non-Catholic", "non-English" etc., rather than "unamerican", "noncatholic", "nonenglish", etc. Esoglou (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gabby Merger for your thoughts on this subject. As you pointed out with a link, the term "Nontrinitarian" is not present only in Wikipedia, but looking at the page you provided we see this line: "Just so we know what we're talking about when we identify groups as nontrinitarian, let's first talk about what it means to be trinitarian." That page has an error which might have caused the second error; you see, I think we have established in this debate well enough that the word "trinitarian" must be capitalized when it's a reference to the Holy Trinity (I used three dictionaries to establish that, and I think others can find more sources). But since that article that you gave us does not capitalize "trinitarian" then the relevant grammatical rule makes "nontrinitarian" the logical form. However, if "trinitarian" is capitalized, as it should be, then automatically we see the need for "non-Trinitarian" according to the grammatical rule. Likewise, other websites are wrong, in my opinion, because even when they use "Trinitarian", they simply don't know the specific grammatical rule which forces the usage of "non-Trinitarian" and "non-Trinitarianism". Since this is an encyclopedia I believe we should enforce the pertinent grammatical rule. I'm willing to clean up everything in the article. Anyway, thanks again for your time and for your kind response. Dontreader (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dontreader. I understand your point. But here's the problem. I don't necessarily agree that the form "trinitarian" (with a lower-case "t") is "wrong" per se all the time. There's no absolute set rule (despite what dictionaries do sometimes) that "Trinitarian" HAS to be always with a cap "T". I've seen "trinitarian" in VARIOUS things over the years, with a smaller "t". Meaning, it would be dogmatic to say that "trinitarian" with a small "t" is definitely always always incorrect. Thereby concluding that "Nontrinitarian" would also be incorrect. I've seen phrases like "that's a trinitiarian slant", etc. Things like that. In reference books, theology books, historical things, various reputable sources. With a lower-case "t"... In other words, it's like whatever. It's not a "rule" in the sense of some REAL "grammatical rules". Such as putting a capital "R" for "Rome". Instead of "rome". Or "Roman", instead of "roman". (There's no argument with that one...as an example.) But with "trinitarian" or even just the word "trinity" (there's no big comparable grammatical problem in putting just the word "trinity" with a lower "t"... And by the way, it was Plato who used coined that term "trinity" originally in Greek, in his book Phaedo, and not Tertullian in Latin centuries later...side-point...) I disagree that there's a "grammatical rule" necessarily for this word. Not in the sense of some REAL examples, words, and phrases. Common usage and wishes are not necessarily hard-fast etched-in-stone "rules". Even though we might think they are (in cases like this), or want there to be. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Which do you think is, objectively speaking, the better form for Wikipedia, whose rules oblige it to follow reliable sources and indeed, if reliable sources disagree, the preponderant view? It is not a question of rules graven in stone. It's just a question of the best choice for a Wikipedia article. Nor is it a matter of one allegedly common usage that clearly is not the more common. Nor is it a matter of what some Wikipedia editors personally prefer.

Plato did use the word τριάς in his Phaedo, but obviously not with regard to the Christian doctrine, but instead to mean the number three: ἀνάρτιος ἄρα ἡ τριάς (So 3 is an odd number). Liddell and Scott does not capitalize τριάς in that sense, nor in other senses in which the word is used in Greek - with one exception: when the word is used with reference to the Christian doctrine as in the Code of Justinian: ἡ ἁγία Τριάς (The holy Trinity). I doubt very much that Plato coined the Greek word, which is just one of the series that has given us the English words "monad", "dyad", "triad", "tetrad", "pentad" ... However, this question is irrelevant to the question of whether it is best in Wikipedia to write, with reference to the Christian doctrine, "trinity", "trinitarian", "nontrinitarian" or "Trinity", "Trinitarian", "non-Trinitarian". Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably should have said that Plato USED the word "trinity" in Greek, in his work Phaedo. Not necessarily for sure that he actually invented the term. My point though is that the concept of an essential "threeness" in the ultimate reality already existed with Plato and Aristotle, and they used the word "trinity" in the Greek form, way before Tertullian's use in Latin. I even said that was a side-point. But yeah, Plato used it, not necessarily "coined" it. But my main thing to Dontreader was that it's simply incorrect to dogmatically say that "trinity" or "trinitarian" with a lower-case "t" is inflexibly absolutely "grammatically incorrect". As compared to other more solid things, such as "Roman" versus "roman". Or maybe "Christian" versus "christian". "Trinitarian" versus "trinitarian" is not quite in that same category. And I was basically really addressing that point. And that regardless of what is supposedly "better", we can't state that things are "rules" when they actually really are not, in trying to make a case. Because then it goes by a false premise. (Or at least a not-very-solid premise.) I personally (in writing or discussing things) have used both ways "Nontrinitarian" and "Non-Trinitarian"...or "Trinitarian" (as in "that Church council is Trinitarian") or the form "trinitarian" (as in "the bias in that essay has a trinitarian leaning" or "the Egyptians had trinitarian concepts".) It depends, too, on context or what is being discussed, to some extent. Also, Dontreader, please read above my other comment. Thanks. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems you are talking about "trinitarian" when it does not refer to the Christian doctrine. That suggests that the citations you are thinking of are also about "trinitarian" in those senses. Nobody, but nobody, is saying that "Trinitarian" in those senses (the concepts of Plato and Aristotle and the pre-Christian Egyptians were obviously not about the Christian doctrine) must be capitalized. On the contrary, they say it should not. The article here is about denial or opposition to the Christian doctrine (non- or anti-), isn't it? In this sense, and only in this sense, the word should be capitalized. Esoglou (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

no, not just that, but even in a Christian context, it's been used that way (lower-case "t") sometimes. Here and there. It's not unheard of, or totally unseen (in the past or present). Not just in pagan or "Egyptian" discussions. Also, the point too is that when there's a "prefix" situation, it can also go either way easily. The fact there's a "Non" in front of it. Also, the word "Biblical" vs "biblical" (with capital and lower-case "b") I've seen both. When we say "non-Biblical" or "nonbiblical", there's a case. I said from the outset that I can see BOTH "Non-Trinitarianism" and "Nontrinitarianism". But it should be noted that this article is arguably NOT JUST about being against the "mainstream Christian" concept, but also about being against ALL (both "pagan" and "Christian") co-equal "trinitarian" concepts. Mainly being in opposition to the PROFESSED Christian doctrine, true. But not exclusively necessarily. Because the argument of non-trinitarians (especially non-trinitarian professed Christians) is that the concept of a co-equal trinity is NOT really totally Biblical or "Christian". (That's their argument, in other words.) That even though there's a divine three in Scripture, there's not necessarily a co-eternal divine three, making up one Godhead. Etc. That's the contention. Again, my only point above to Dontreader is that technically there's no absolute "rule" with the form "trinity" versus "Trinity" and "trinitarian" vs "Trinitarian" (lower and upper-case "t"s). As I've seen (not just the website I cited above) in various reputable reference books etc, the form "trinitarian" in "Christian" contexts and discussions. There's no solid "rule" in that sense. Not in the sense of how "Roman" is correct versus "roman" (with the "r" there). But again, I do obviously concede that capitalizing "T" in "Trinity" and "Trinitarian" is fine, and correct. But to say dogmatically (even in Roman Catholic or Christian contexts) that "Trinity" has to always be with an upper-case "T", and never in a lower-case "t", or that only Wikipedia ever did that, and that's it's unseen anywhere else in books, websites, references, is simply not true. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again, Gabby Merger, for your excellent observations. Many thanks to Esoglou as well. I thought it would be easy to reach consensus on this matter, but I see it's more complicated than I had anticipated, so I will not rename the page. I still believe it was a good idea to bring up the issue since I saw a potential opportunity to improve the encyclopedia, but you both have much more experience with this topic, yet you disagree, so once again, thanks for your kind input. Dontreader (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I think (wrongly?) that Gabby has not answered my question, "Which spelling is the better in this concrete case, for this Wikipedia article?", and that he is still talking about the question in an abstract fashion. But it does seem that he (though perhaps alone) opposes a change. If Dontreader gives up, I do not wish to continue a discussion with Gabby on my own. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I must correct Gabby's statement that this article is "NOT JUST about being against the "mainstream Christian" concept". It most certainly is. If a disambiguator is necessary tyo make that blindingly obvious, then so be it. What about "Non-Trintarianism (Christian theology)" or "Non-Trintarianism (theology)"? Once that is in place, then Gabby's other valid points about how other usages may not capitalise Trinitarianism fall away. Within an exclusively Christian theological context, it becomes more correct to exclusively capitalise and to re-direct to non-Christian usages. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Even though it's obviously mainly about the professed "Christian" doctrine of the Trinity, it is NOT necessarily exclusively against that...as the point (which keeps being missed) is that non-Trinitarian professed Christians DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE "CO-EQUAL TRINITY DOCTRINE" is actually truly "Christian" or Biblical, and Arians and Sabellians are also against ANY kind of co-equal "trinity" concept, in a religious sense. The article itself even goes into being against the Egyptian, Babylonian, Grecian "trinity" concepts. It stems somewhat from that too, is the point. But even if it's exclusively against the "Christian" or Roman Catholic mainstream Nicean doctrine of the "Trinity", that does not negate the main fact and point that "trinity" sometimes in smaller-case "t" is also used in reference to that. Many reputable things and refs have used both ways, even in regard to the mainstream Christian concept, which is why I personally am ok with both. If it's re-done with a cap T, I have NO quarrel or issue against that. Either way is fine, because either way (whatever someone perceives as "better" is not the point, as the form "Nontrinitarian" is NOT just a Wikipedia coinage) has been done in solid sources, over the years. There's no solid absolute "rule", in quite that sense, in other words. Neither in usage (whether most put a cap "T" on it or not) nor in formal grammatical principle about that word. It's not like "German" or "german". There's definitely a "rule" with that...but not quite as absolute for "trinity" or "Trinity" or "trinitarian" or "Trinitarian". The issue as to whether this article is "exclusively" or "mainly" against the professed mainstream Christian doctrine of the co-equal "Trinity" is not even my main point. It's the point that EVEN IN the "Christian" doctrine context, there are times when "trinity" or "trinitarian" or "Nontrinitarian" (with smaller "t") has been done...and not just on Wikipedia, but in various academic and theological works over the years, sometimes. And also the point, to re-iterate, is the fact that in this case, with the article name, there's a pre-fix, "Non", would mean that it's not that big a deal...to have a lower-case "t" there, for that set-up. Just like you see "un-Scriptural" and "unscriptural". "Scriptural" is sometimes with capital "S" and sometimes lower-case "s". Depending on the discretion of the writer etc. It's a bit more flexible and fluid, in cases like this. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Do you perhaps now raise no objection to moving the article to "Non-Trinitarianism"? I don't think there is any point in discussing whether a significant number (but still a perhaps small minority) of reliable sources lower-case "trinity" with reference to the mainstream Christian doctrine. I think it would be a misunderstanding to say that you see the article as about various kinds of trinities, while I understand the article as being about non- or anti- views that "reject the mainstream Christian doctrine of the Trinity", with other trinities mentioned for the sake of denying or attacking the mainstream doctrine. Esoglou (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I withdraw completely from this unproductive discussion and will remain neutral on any proposal to move the article to "Non-Trinitarianism". I do think that "non-Trinitarianism" is the more correct term and I do agree that lower-case usage does exist also, but I do not think it worth my while to pursue it further. Treat me as neutral on the proposal.

I came here just because of this discussion, but the disregard for the counsel given at WP:SAY has drawn my attention to the many other cases of such disregard in the article, which I have now tried to remedy. That has showed the need to make other changes, which I will make soon. Esoglou (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

To say that Arians and Sabellians are against the mainstream doctrine "co-equal "trinity" concept in a religious sense" seems to imply that they may (1) be in favour of a "co-equal "trinity" concept" in a non religious sense, such as clover, or (2) may be in favour of a "non-equal "trinity" concept" in a non religious sense", such as powers of government. While both these things may be possible, the more reasonable, and most simple, explanation is that they are in favour of a "non-equal "trinity" concept in a religious sense". That it to say, it is only the mainstream doctrine that they are against; the argument, therefore is in the ground of mainstream theology, not their own theology. By ceding the ground to the mainstream theology, the usages of that mainstream must also be employed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Vote call

Please vote for (A) retaining the current name, (B) changing the name to "Non-Trinitarianism" or (C) bring this discussion to an independent arbitration mechanism. Laurel Lodged (talk)

• B Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• B Dontreader (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What Aristotle wrote

I am grateful to Gabby Merger for removing the long comment that he placed on my talk page. Otherwise I would have moved it here for discussion in connection with the article, instead of treating it as an interpersonal dispute. Gabby Merger initially wished to keep in the article only the text that certain anti-Trinitarians attributed to Aristotle, and for which the article cited Michael Barber's Should Christianity Abandon the Doctrine of the Trinity?. I must apologize for failing to notice that it also attributed it to a website of the United Church of God and mistakenly thinking that Barber was the only source cited. Gabby Merger has stated that the text is found also in Arthur Weigall's The Paganism in Our Christianity and "in many works". Are all the works that attribute this text to Aristotle as anti-Trinitarian as these three?

The trouble is that the text they attribute to Aristotle is an inaccurate translation of what Aristotle wrote. What he wrote (in Greek of course) can be seen here - page 211 for the text in question.

Works that give no thought whatever to the Trinity, for or against it, translate accurately what he wrote. Take this complete translation of Aristotle's work, given also here and here and here and here and here. Other translations that in substance agree with this widely given translation and disagree with what the anti-Trinitarian sources attribute to Aristotle are this and this.

The highly pertinent fact that the text that the ant-Trinitarian works give is a falsification of Aristotle has now been hidden by presenting the accurate translation as not about the same matter at all. By all means inform about what the anti-Trinitarian sources say, but don't hide the fact of its inaccuracy. Esoglou (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello. And as I said, that's why I restored it, and also, though I get your point, the actual point is that the quote that was already given is generally (per paragraph and per context) how they (the Nontrinitarian Christians) give it as. Which is similar of course, but it's the way it's given by them, and is more contextual to the point of their viewpoint and position. And that fact should not be ignored. And you didn't totally ignore it, true, to be fair. It's true that at first you were simply giving it as an alternate. (Though yesterday, you gave it as a total substitute). That's why though, on re-thinking, I restored what you put in, in the next paragraph. I was just worried (initially, the other day) that it might be a bit redundant. But on further examination, I see that there are extra words in the quote too, in the beginning, that could be relevant or of interest. Both renderings should be given, for the reader to analyze and study.

Again, though, my point is that your particular quotation rendering is not the rendering that NON-TRINITARIANS use to make the point. Contextually THEIR quote and wording should be used, as that is how THEY quote and state it. Even if you personally don’t like it as much.... It’s just another rendering of Aristotle’s words anyway, but more the Non-trinitarian quote...per paragraph...and context. (By the way, it was the Barber source that came second.)

But I see it's probably a good idea to have that elaborated rendering, and point there also. The rendering (that you're not too fond of) given generally by nontrinitarian professed Christians etc, (which is not really so inaccurate necessarily, as the overall point and thrust are there, from Aristotle) and also the rendering and translation that you gave...for further elaboration and knowledge. Cheers. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to having the article state what the anti-Trinitarian sources falsely attribute to Aristotle. I trust that you will now allow a mention of what is really in the passage they refer to, without passing it off as not the same passage. I have edited the article accordingly. Esoglou (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

If you still doubt that the text in the cited anti-Trinitarian sources distorts the original, ask someone who can read Greek whether that text corresponds to: Μεγέθους δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐφ' ἓν γραμμή, τὸ δ' ἐπὶ δύο ἐπίπεδον, τὸ δ' ἐπὶ τρία σῶμα καὶ παρὰ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο μέγεθος κτλ. In particular, get that person to tell you whether in what Aristotle wrote there is anything that corresponds to what the anti-Trinitarian sources call the (capitalized) "Trinity". Esoglou (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to investigate that more, and look more into the Greek, but if part of the problem is the word "trinity" (capitalized or not) versus the word "triad", then sorry, THAT'S A DISTINCTION WITHOUT ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, because the words mean the same..."a set of three". Cardinal Newmann (Roman Catholic) used the words "trinity" and "triad'" INTER-CHANGEABLY...when referring to the Biblical God...in his own translations, of Athanasius, etc etc. But also, to say that the anti-Trinitarian sources "falsely attribute to Aristotle" is an over-statement. Even if a better rendering could be this or that or the other. The general thrust (I saw your rendering too, and the point about a special "threeness" etc is clearly there also, regardless....) But even so, it doesn't matter much anyway that you think the "anti-Trinitarian translations of Aristotle" are "distorting the original"...because contextually that's how they render it and make the point about it. Per paragraph, and per drift of the section.

Anyway, as I did before, I put spacing for paragraph. And modified the beginning. This "what Aristotle actually wrote" is POV pushing, at least to some extent. This is Wikipedia...and we go by sources (and sources have it as different renderings.) We can't be in the business of saying "this is a better translation of it", because we have feelings for or against the co-equal trinity doctrine. Or even if we're right, and it's technically a better translation. Wikipedia doesn't really care what is technically "true", as long as it is sourced. And the rendering that you have problems with (even if it ISN'T the best rendering) is definitely solidly sourced and reffed. We go by what is sourced in general, and also by context also, not what you THINK are accurate or inaccurate translations. The more neutral "another rendering" is more appropriate. (I know that you're an ardent Trinitarian, and nothing you say will convince me that that has zero to do with any of this. Doesn't mean that you don't valid points or edits on this, I know...but people are only human.) But you don't see me writing on the other paragraph "this is what Aristotle actually wrote", but only that NON-TRINITARIANS say that he says this. How they quote it. Also, "The Paganism In Our Christianity" is a reputable and a highly quoted source, one can't deny. It's a reference that is known, used, and solid (whether or not we personally agree with everything that's been written it, as that is irrelevant.) And that sort of sourced rendering is what's warranted there. Per context in the paragraph.

The problem is we can't endorse one translation as "this is the way it actually was" over another EVEN IF WE'RE RIGHT, because Wikipedia doesn't care what is technically "true", but only what is sourced. And the fact is that both renderings are sourced. There's no question that the rendering that you don't like and find flawed is referenced and sourced. And so is the translation that you placed there after. But it should not say "this is what Aristotle REALLY said" so as to make it like the previous rendering is not really what Aristotle said, and is so incredibly inaccurate, when not all necessarily feel that way, whether it's true or not. So we have to keep it neutral and NPOV sounding. I kept the whole translation there, but changed the beginning intro to it, to more NPOV tone and wording. In line with Wikipedia policy. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Very well. After all, not everyone can read Greek. But we can point out the differences between the seemingly self-composed text in the sources that you prefer and the translations made by serious scholars working neither as Trinitarians nor as non-Trinitarians. Indeed, Trinitarians should be grateful to you for having that text in Wikipedia, which shows what kind of argument some anti-Trinitarians have recourse to or, as you put it, how they "quote" Aristotle. Esoglou (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I can and do read SOME Greek (more than the average person on the street), though not officially a "Greek scholar". Not the point. Sorry, I had to revert that whole thing you put, as it is simply NOT the section for it...for a whole diatribe (though interesting) on how this rendering differs from this, and which is better, and that, and all the Greek characters. Even if the summation is correct, that's not the actual place for all of that, contextually. What you wrote is valid BUT FOR ANOTHER ARTICLE probably. Not for this article, and definitely not for this section. This (again to repeat) is an article that basically gives the reasons that NON-TRINITARIANS (and especially non-trinitarian professed Christians, in that section also) have trouble with a co-equal trinity doctrine being defined as the Biblical God. What you put is interesting and good information (which is why I retained the alternate rendering in general), but all that other stuff you wrote is not warranted or fitting for this article or section, etc. It's still POV pushing, and non-contextual to the paragraph and overall section..... It's really that simple. Why is having the alternate rendering there at all not enough?? That already was a concession, but you're trying to push it into making and conveying dogmatically (as if Wikipedia itself has this position) that "this here below is really the better and more accurate translation, you can basically disregard the one above, given by non-trinitarians".

The problem is that that would be A) non-contextual to the section and overall article in general, but especially to the section, and B) even in another article saying dogmatically (as if WP itself endorses one rendering over another) that this is the actual and better translation, is POV-pushing. Depending on how the intro to it is worded. Though in an article (such as "Trinity" etc) it could arguably be more warranted and understandable, when trying to give TRINITARIAN viewpoints and rationales. The section here "Purported pagan origins" and also in the context of what NON-trinitarian Christians are quoting, to put the notion that "this is the better rending" would be out of place, and confusing. I agree to some extent that both renderings could be given here, but NOT with ANY idea that the translation you have placed is DEFINITELY FOR SURE IN THE GREEK (SEE THE GREEK WORDS ETC) IS THE BETTER TRANSLATION. Why do that? Unless it's to coat rack an agenda or whatever? It does NOT come across as NPOV to convey that the rendering given by Nontrinitarians is lousy and distorted. It just isn't neutral and WP kosher, when there are solid sources for that rendering...whether right or wrong, accurate or not-so-accurate.

As I said, and this is just a fact, Wikipedia doesn't care what is actually technically "true" or "accurate", JUST WHAT IS SOURCED. Both renderings are sourced, but Wikipedia does not endorse one rendering over another, in that sense. And the book "The Paganism In Our Christianity" is a source, and so are the other things...for the more Non-trinitarian translation. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

1. The sourced fact that certain anti-Trinitarians attribute your beloved text to Aristotle is in the article. Nobody is saying it should be removed. So stop talking about it as if it were under some threat. It isn't. We are all happy to see it stated here that those anti-Trinitarian writers say what they say.
2. The version of the article that you have reverted from did not state that the published translations of Aristotle are "a better rendering" or that they are "the actual and better translation". So stop saying that it did. It only gave information about three highly reputed translations and about the fact that in the original Greek a certain phrase does not appear before Aristotle's mention of the Pythagoreans. Do you dispute any part of this information?
3. Please allow the article to let readers, in line with Wikipedia directives, draw from the evidence their own conclusion about what Aristotle really said. So stop suppressing part of the evidence, as you did with your reverting.
4. If this section on purported pagan origins made no claim that certain words of Aristotle prefigured the doctrine of the Trinity, then information on what exactly Aristotle wrote would be off-topic, non-contextual. But since the section does say it, information on what Aristotle wrote is highly pertinent, very much so. You may add evidence for your view that Aristotle did write the words that you claim are his. But in NPOV Wikipedia you have no right to suppress well-sourced information that disagrees with your personal POV. Esoglou (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

1. It's not necessarily "my beloved text". It's simply an established text, and happens to be the preferred text of some "anti-trinitarians" in question. The rendering they did, which (despite what you say) is NOT that much of a deviation or a "distortion" from the other ones. The gist in all renderings is the same...an essential threeness in important aspects of life. Because the other renderings that you put I personally actually happen to like too. It makes the point. I'm into language and issues like this. They're interesting. So the little differences in wordings in the translation (that you seem to be exaggerating, though I do admit there's a difference) is not a big issue to me. The issue is that the average non-trinitarian professed Christian writer and theologian generally goes by "The Paganism In Our Christianity" rendering.
2. Even if the exact words "these here below are better renderings" are not there, OF COURSE THAT IS THE IMPLICATION AND THE VERY POINT of a) even putting the alternate renderings in the first place, and b) saying stuff like the other way you had it before as "this is what Aristotle actually said" and after that "independent English translations" (giving the impression that because these were "independent", which is not necessarily true, as everyone has biases sometimes, that they must be "better renderings")...and even now with the words you put "not with the account that the cited anti-Trinitarian sources give, an account that differs from the original Greek text in ways that include the absence in the original of anything corresponding to 'let us use this number in the worship of the gods'"...so who are we kidding here with that? You already worded before in your other edits the more POV "this is what Aristotle actually said"...and that is what I reverted... Now, you put it as a bit more neutral sounding "a quite different rendering". What I reverted was not that, but the "differs considerably from the independent English translations of..." way you had it before...which obviously is saying (by implication) "this below is the more reliable rendering...the Greek characters are there and everything". Also, why does your own Stocks translation have the words "worship of the gods" in it? That was what you yourself put in too. But this French this and that and the "not with the account that the cited anti-Trinitarian sources give" is definitely (blatantly) saying "this is a better translation below", and is at least to some clear extent POV. So just because the exact words "this is a more accurate translation" were not present, the obvious point was there. And that's non-neutral. And that was the very point and reason you put the alternate rendering IN THE FIRST PLACE...because you felt (right or wrong) that the first translation given was not really all that accurate. Otherwise what was the point?
3. I ALREADY ALLOWED THE OTHER RENDERING DAYS AGO...so where was the "suppression"?? Did you forget that? I only "suppressed" or had a problem with POV WORDING in the beginning of the paragraph etc...and biased phrases like "this is what Aristotle ACTUALLY said", and all those Greek characters points, where the impression was being given that "the rendering generally used by non-trinitarians is really a lousy unreliable rendering, people, don't go by that...go by the one you see below, because that is what's really accurate". THAT (and only that...the POV wording and pushing and implications of "this is what Aristotle actually said") had to be suppressed and removed...arguably. As it was injecting your personal (right or wrong) feelings about it. (Meanwhile the renderings are NOT that much different anyway. And "worship of the gods" is also in some of the renderings you put also...) Saying that the what the "anti-triniarians" use is lousy and unreliable, and a "distortion"...by the more subtle (yet still obvious) words of "what Aristotle actually said " and "independent translators differ considerably from the quote anti-Trinitarians use", etc. That POV stuff does not belong on Wikipedia...especially in this context. I only had an issue with that. Not the alternate rendering itself necessarily. I already conceded and let that in days ago. No "suppression" there with that.
4. As I said, again, there was no suppression of anything pertinent or neutral or relevant, as I already agreed and allowed days ago that the alternate rendering could be put in, but simply not with the wording and notion and idea that this for sure definitely is the better more accurate rendering, even if it may technically be true!! As the fact is that Wikipedia does not really care what is technically "true", but only what is sourced and documented. And both renderings are sourced. And not everyone necessarily feels that the Weigall one is so much a "distortion", per se. Or that what some "anti-Trinitarians" use and quote is so unreliable. Even if it's not 100% "accurate", Wikipedia should not endorse one rendering over another, when not all established sources have said that. Some do, some don't. Neutrality in WP articles is important. The translation that you have so much trouble with (which is NOT so radically different from the renderings that you like better, the point of three in a set, and the over-arching principles of supposed significance and importance of "threeness" in the world, are still there, in either translation, even if one is slightly more slanted than the other), happens to be a rendering that is definitely sourced. You initially wrongly thought it was only from the "United Church" or something. When in fact it was from Barber, and Weigall "The Paganism In Our Christianity" before that. Fairly established stuff. And it happens to be the rendering that the nontrinitarian Christians (right or wrong, accurate or not-very-accurate) happen to use mostly.
5. But even if they used the rendering that you like, the point is still there anyway. A basic and universal and essential "threeness" in life and dimensions in the world. Point again is that there's no question that you've been POV-pushing with the words "not with the account that the cited anti-Trinitarian sources give, an account that differs from the original Greek text in ways that include the absence in the original of anything corresponding to 'let us use this number in the worship of the gods'" and "this is what Aristotle actually said", and putting so much diatribe in the article about this one thing, when it was sufficient to simply have the alternate rendering. But you went beyond that. You couldn't let it go, after what was done on Sunday. You put all these different multiple renderings that basically say the same thing, which is redundant, and trying to sneak in the notion that "these renderings are better than the Wiegall one, so disregard the Wiegall one, it's biased and is not independent and is not accurate". And sorry, that POV stuff NEEDS to be "suppressed" on Wikipedia. Continue doing it, then it gets modified or reverted. Please stop pushing so much verbiage on this one thing. Plus it's not even necessary anyway, as the alternate renderings are the same BASIC thing and point, and get to be redundant now. You have too many renderings put in. Just one alternate is enough. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The "established text" (your term) that anti-Trinitarians uniquely claim to have been written by Aristotle is sourced only to them. It appears in no translation of the works of Aristotle. If, as you say, you have some knowledge of Greek (ἀλλ' ἄρα χρὴ πιστεῦσαι;), you can see for yourself that it does not correspond to the original. Among the obvious differences, you cannot deny and haven't that Aristotle's own words did not have "let us use this number in the worship of the gods" before the mention of the Pythagoreans, information that you are trying to suppress. The Guthrie, Stocks and Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire translations are independent of each other but all of them, as you say, "basically say the same thing" and so, taken together, far outweigh the caricature that you "personally actually happen to like". (It could be interesting to find out who invented that text, which was copied by the others. Was it Wiegall, since you call it the Weigall rendering?) Wikipedia reports both the caricature that you personally actually happen to like and also the translations sourced to a broad range of NPOV sources that agree among themselves but disagree with what you personally actually happen to like. If you dislike the fact that these translations outweigh what you personally actually happen to like, that does not authorize you to suppress them - or any of them. You are not free to force on readers the idea that you personally actually happen to like. You must let them draw their own conclusions from the evidence. Esoglou (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You keep repeatedly calling it what I "happen to like"...which shows that you're not reading carefully what I wrote, or not believing it. Or not understanding it. I don't care that much one way or the other, as I said also to you that I "like" all of the renderings, and they basically (essentially) convey the same BASIC thought anyway. They're all fine. (Hence why I also said "redundant"...because the differences are not major...despite what you say or think...and like to overblow on this matter.) I was concerned with the context that it's obvious that it's non-trinitarians who are quoting this in the first place here, and saying it, and that's how THEY generally word it or how they generally "translate" Aristotle's overall words with this.

And I was concerned with redundancy with putting so MANY renderings of this thing on to this, when it's not really necessary. One alternate, maybe, sure. But 4 or 5 of them?? And then to say on top of that, in POV fashion, (or convey) "well the one that anti-trinitarians quote is way off, and inaccurate...these here below are better". We're going around in circles now. Because I said (also repeatedly) that YOU MAY BE TECHNICALLY RIGHT...and I may even agree in that sense...that the Weigall one (whether he himself was the actual originator of that translation wording or not) may be to some degree off slightly or somewhat not totally accurate in some spots, or that the other renderings may be a bit truer or more correct to the original Greek. So what?? That's overall kind of irrelevant, as again the point of the section is why NON-TRINITARIANS (with which EVER rendering...because the over-arching thought is still the same regardless) have a problem with the co-equal trinity doctrine, and the point of Grecian pagan influence, and what THEY (Nontrinitarians) generally quote Aristotle's Greek words in English. In established sources.

Neutrality is important, on Wikipedia. I am not for suppressing pertinent and interesting information. Just biased wordings, regardless of who's right. And all that weird redundancy on there is not warranted. You've been edit-warring on this...and that's not how it should go. Again, why couldn't you just let the concession from days ago now be enough, and let the matter go? Nothing pertinent was being "suppressed". Just unreasonable REDUNDANCY AND SOME POV-WORDING...that was it. The alternate was ok, but 3 or 4 of them, and giving the thought that "anti-trinitarians" are distorting Aristotle's words, is out of place here. That's all. Gabby Merger (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Differences there are. Let the readers, not you or I with our contrary views, judge whether they are major or minor. You did say of the anti-Trinitarian attribution to Aristotle, but not of the more faithful translations, that you personally happened to like it, didn't you? Esoglou (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I was referring to YOUR renderings. That I "happen to like". I liked THE OTHER TRANSLATIONS...too. That's why I said to read more carefully what I wrote. The exact quote was this: "Because the other renderings that you put I personally actually happen to like too. It makes the point. I'm into language and issues like this. They're interesting." Gabby Merger (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're right on that. I apologize for my mistake. May I add that, for most people "established sources" means something other than self-sourcing. Esoglou (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- name of the church and Arianism

Woosh, that's a mouthful of words. I can understand the desire to shorten the name of the church, so use the "approved" shortened versions of the name. This is an encyclopedia, not Bridget Jones's Diary, we don't write in a "popular" style, we write in the correct style (however "correct" is defined). The name of that religion isn't "Mormonism" -- use the correct abbreviations. Next, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth -- different people have different viewpoints? Put both viewpoints in, link to references, let the reader make up their own mind. Sure, there are several significant differences between what that church teaches and an Arian viewpoint, just like there are several significant differences between the Roman Catholic and the Russian Orthodox religions. There are also a heck of a lot of similarities, as I summarized. Banaticus (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusing true historical "Arianism" with SOCINIANISM...and removing confusing inaccurate statements from the LDS section

hello. This is just to document on this talk page what's been going on, and why I had to do (indisputably) what I've been doing. Removing unsourced inaccurate confusing statements from the LDS part of this article. Statements that have no bearing in historical reality, or solid documentation or reference. The other editor Dromidaon, frankly, is simply incorrect. In a number of ways.

Actual "Arians" NEVER believed that Christ started His existence right at His birth from Mary. Arius clearly taught that Christ PRE-EXISTED Mary...as a divine being alongside the Father. He's confusing Arianism with SOCINIANISM.

The source that he cited and he used for this (mis)notion (that somehow actual Arians and Arius believed that Christ began His existence at His human birth from Mary, which simply isn't true) is "What is Arianism" and is a VERY UNRELIABLE SOURCE...by the wrongly-named so-called British "church" "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism". I'm very familiar with. Those people are NOT true "Arians". They don't teach or believe most of what Arius taught or believed, nor of the actual "Arians" at the 4th and 5th centuries A.D. This "church" is, simply put, bogus...in their self-naming.

They're Socinians. They disavow MANY of the actual teachings of Arius and Arians. Arius himself clearly taught Christ's pre-existence.

The problem is that it's not just the source that's in dispute, but the statements themselves also that were put in. They’re simply inaccurate and wrong statements. Ascribing stuff to Arius and Arians that is simply untrue. Historically and doctrinally incorrect.

And the words that were put in the paragraph are just misleading. Giving the impression, the false impression, that Arius or actual "Arians" themselves believed that Christ's existence began at His birth from Mary. When that simply isn't true. And not only are they "not true", they are also not solidly sourced. Solid REPUTABLE sources know and state that Arius believed that the Logos was the VERY FIRST production of God, BEFORE AGES. Before Mary, Abraham, or Adam. Before the earth, sun, stars, solar systems. Before the entire universe...and before all angels. And before all ages.

Arians never believed or taught that Christ's existence began with Mary...but clearly taught that the Logos pre-existed Mary. SOLID sources show this. The stuff that was put in before only served to CONFUSE people who may know no better. Thinking that real "Arians" are Socinians or something, when they just aren't. This bogus nonsense "church" of "Arian Catholicism" is no more true Arian or Semi-Arian than are Moonies or Muslims. They're simply NOT Arian Christians. The source is sooo weak and unreliable, it's like not funny. But again, it isn't only the source that is nonsense, it's the actual words put in the paragraph. They have no support in anything, and are inaccurate, and unsourced. They don't belong there or anywhere, on Wikipedia.

Arius explicitly taught that Christ had a pre-human existence, and was begotten way before Mary. He taught this CLEARLY...unambiguously. And so did the "Arians" around that time. And ever since. And that fact is COPIOUSLY and solidly sourced. "Arianism" is NOT "Socinianism". The two should never be sloppily confused like that. That is NOT careful collating or conveying. But is just confusing. So we have to be careful and accurate. And use RELIABLE sources. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Careful attention to the previous edit (Mine on 12/3) will reveal that the disputed information and it's source was removed. Gabby's undo on 12/3 added the source back into the article because Gabby's previous edit on 12/1 caused the reference to be orphaned, and then rescued by the AnomieBOT. In like argument, claiming that Mormons are Arianistic is also inaccurate and confusing. Similar reliable sources have never claimed it. Dromidaon (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

hi. Excuse me. You really need to stop doing this. Because it will lead nowhere. You're edit-warring now. And you're going against WP policy, on a number of fronts. If you continue to put that inaccurate unsourced stuff on that section, it will always (by either me or someone else eventually) be reverted.

Remember...it was that OTHER editor Banaticus who reverted you first. But please stop this warring and insistence now. The thing was already explained in this article Talk. What you put is totally inaccurate, misleading, confusing, and unsourced... It has no place there. What you're not getting is that there those who consider Mormons to hold at least to a FORM of Arian type notions. And in a way, Mormons officially do TO SOME EXTENT. Though not totally.

But to say or imply or indicate (wrongly) that Arius believed what Socinus believed, that Christ Jesus began His existence only as a Man born from Mary, IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. The "Arian Catholic Church" is NOT true "Arian" in belief or teaching. They're a fake weird SOCINIAN group, that likes to dishonestly call itself "Arian" for some neurotic reason. But that page of theirs is NOT a "reliable source".

The source you put is not just disputed, it's irrelevant. Because actual "Arianism" DOES NOT hold to what that UNreliable source has. It's just inaccurate, as well as not reliably sourced.

As there are already many SOLID sources (not the unreliable nonsense "Arian Catholic Church" ref web ad page that you originally put up), that state clearly that Arius and real Arians never taught or believed that Christ began His existence from Mary's womb.

But Arius taught that Christ PRE-EXISTED Mary, Abraham, Angels, and the entire universe. As God's First-begotten Pre-existent Logos and Son. Not just as a "concept", but as a person. This (to anyone who knows about Arius etc) is a "sky blue" thing, but beyond that, it's been known and sourced solidly for years, decades, and centuries now. And that FAKE "Arian" church is NOT "Arian". They're SOCINIAN. So giving the false impression on the article that actual "Arians" or "Arius" himself believed that Christ was just a perfect sinless Man from Mary's womb, whose beginning of existence started from her, IS MISLEADING, WRONG, AND CONFUSING. So there's no warrant at all to put that there. And it has NO solid sources for it. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

James Leonard Papandrea

Gabby Merger, when I see editors SHOUTING, I see a problem. I had come here to say that this removal of content re Mormonism seems fine, but when I see above I'm not so sure. My own general understanding is that the difference between Arianism and Sociniasm is as you say - preexistence. Having said that it isn't clear historically that either Arius himself or all others pre Sozzini were what is called Arians, Arius may have been a Socinian.

James Leonard Papandrea -Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicaea 2012 "Following Paul of Samosata, he [Arius] proposed that the Logos was not the preincarnate Jesus, but simply the personified wisdom of God, a created manifestation of God's mind extended for the purpose of creating the universe. Even the Logos was ...

This is not substantially different from either Laelio Sozzini or his nephew Fausto. And is very different from the Arianism of groups which believe Jesus preexisted as the Angel Michael.

Anyway, content re Mormonism belongs in a small box at the bottom of the article with link to Christ (Mormonism) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, the occasional caps were not meant as "shouting" per se, but as emphasis, maybe a bit stronger than simple "italics". But not out-and-out "shouting". But the point being that that stuff is un-sourced and inaccurate, plain and simple.

Arius clearly unmistakably believed and taught that Jesus Christ had a pre-human existence. That He existed before Mary or even the Angels. That's not disputable. The word "Logos" is a different matter. We're talking about the FACT (not opinion or interpretation) that Arius explicitly taught that the Son of God, who became Jesus Christ, was God's "first creation", before ages. That's NOT what Socinus taught. And it's also not what this phony "Arian" church teaches or believes either. Wrongly calling themselves "Arian"...for some dishonest confusing reason. It's irrelevant though.

No reliable source ever says that Arius himself ever taught or believed that Christ began His existence only at birth from Mary. And to give that kind of confusing misleading idea in the paragraph, with no solid sources to back that up (and none exist in the first place, because no solid source would ever say that, your quote notwithstanding), is simply wrong and out-of-place. It ascribes to Arius and actual "Arians" (real ones, who hold to Arius's views), things that are simply not true. And not only is not true, it's not sourced.

Also, in the Council of Nicea, it was clear what Arius was saying.

Not even his enemies (Athanasius, Alexander, etc) ever accused Arius of believing or teaching that Christ only began His existence from Mary's womb. This isn't even debatable.

Arius believed and taught (as attested to even by his enemies) that Jesus Christ had a PRE-HUMAN existence, and was God's first creation, before ages. That He was the pre-existent "Son of God" brought forth as the first of God's creatures. And that THROUGH HIM everything else was created. Not just as "Logos a concept", but as an actual person. Arius was no "Socinian". This really isn't even debatable. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well

That's not what the source says:

James Leonard Papandrea -Reading the Early Church Fathers: From the Didache to Nicaea 2012 "Following Paul of Samosata, he [Arius] proposed that the Logos was not the preincarnate Jesus, but simply the personified wisdom of God, a created manifestation of God's mind extended for the purpose of creating the universe. Even the Logos was ...

Otherwise, sorry but all I see is someone using the word "phony" and CAPS on a Talk page.

As for The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Arian Catholicism I have never heard of it but looks like an individual with a web page. It doesn't pass notability to be in the article, so doesn't require discussion on the Talk page.

As for LDS, that could be at the page bottom.

In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to see the whole page and/or pages of what Papandrea wrote and what he was trying to fully say.

If he was saying that in some sense Arius believed that the LOGOS (just that term alone) was a concept and Wisdom personified or the "Mind" of God (as did Sabellians), BUT that Jesus Christ HIMSELF existed as ONLY-BEGOTTEN Son, BEFORE Mary or the universe, then that still is not what Socinus believed or taught.

But IF Papandrea is saying that Arius believed that Jesus never existed as a person before Mary, then, sorry, Papandrea is TOTALLY WRONG. And is not reliable. Because (sky blue) everyone who knows about Arius, the Arian controversy, the Council of Nicea, Athanasius, etc etc, knows (not just conjectures, but totally knows) that Arius and his followers taught clearly unmistakably that Jesus Christ A) had a pre-human existence before Mary, and B) that, as "firstborn Son", was the FIRST of the Father's productions, before ages, and C) that as Firstborn Son before ages, made the universe at the Father's direction. That's NOT AT ALL what Socinus taught or believed. Socinus taught strictly that Jesus Christ had NO actual pre-human existence, but was simply a perfect sinless Man and Messiah, who began His existence only from Mary's womb. Arius would never teach such a thing. Both Athanasius and Arius believed that Christ existed BEFORE the earth was even formed. Socinus didn't. Gabby Merger (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabby, I believe that you are acting hastily and have missed something very important in your argument. Right now as the article currently stands, your undo has added the reference to The Arian Catholic Church back into the page (see footnote 40). I had removed the information you disputed in the edit that you have undone, including these references to the Arian Catholic Church that you are so passionate about, and the idea that Arians believe Christ was created at birth. This concept is clearly in opposition to the teachings of Arius, as you stated. Removing information that you disputed does not mean I am not attempting to edit war with you. It means that I am attempting to bring the article into a compromised consensus with every ones viewpoint, including yours, mine, and Banaticus. I agree that the article is better off without it, but as the article currently stands, your disputed reference is there. I (obviously) agree that the previous edit was a better option. Dromidaon (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Current state of the article

When I look at the difference in the page since I last edited, it looks like all the changes have been in the LDS section. Looking at the diff I just linked, with the last edit by Gabby Merger, it looks like what's there is good information, well referenced, and pretty accurate. Some of the statements that I saw in intermediate edits by other people were somewhat questionable, but I think this version is a good one. Banaticus (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)